So I frequently read the UK newspaper websites during my breaks. I find it especially amusing to see different slants put on the same story. So, seeing as they're political (and quality) opposites, I read the Guardian and the Daily Mail's pages. The story that has dominated the news the last few days has been the lifting of the identities of the killers of a certain Peter Connelly (or Baby P during the trial), who was subject to a frankly horrific experience at the hands of his mother, her partner and their lodger (revealed to be his older brother). The reason given by the presiding judge was that the move would "restore faith in the legal system". The vitriol raised at the case is partially understandable, as it is part of our nature to be protective of the very young, regardless of relation. It's a survival instinct. This is not the issue. The issue is that the legal system should not be subject to the whims of easily riled up emotional people. And my two sources are interesting opposites of the reactionary spectrum.
The Daily Mail reverts to its Modus Operandi of using emotionally charged language, bandying about words such as "evil", "helpless", "inept" etc. in order to stir up a burgeoning e-mob. And by and large, they have succeeded-Facebook and comment boards the world over are sharpening knives and pitchforks and preparing a mobile gallows. It's not their reaction that peturbs me; as I outlined before, it's a human instinct to be protective of the young. However, what riles me is that this mob will die down as soon as Russell Brand gets back onto primetime radio. Like most things in life, it reminds me of the Simpsons. At a moment's notice, and for no real reason, the citizens of Springfield turn into an angry mob and then disperse just as quickly. The same is true of cases like this; no less than 30 children have died in similar circumstances to Connelly since his death-where were the moral watchmen then?
The Guardian, in its inimitably reasonable style attempts to appeal for calm. It calls for restraint and an attempt to understand the nature of the crime so that future crimes of this magnitude can be avoided. It's a noble idea, to be sure, but at the same time far-fetched. Any attempt to persuade the mob that this is an important and worthwhile practice (it is, in my book) is the equivalent of a gerbil standing up to a steamroller. People think it is akin to locking the stable door after the horse has bolted. Without remembering, to stretch the analogy to ucomfortable levels, that there are a multitude of horses left in the stable. Unfortunately, this baser instinct permeates through decision-making bodies who are scared witless of the tabloid press. So rather than letting the seeds be sown to intercept and cut down on cases of this type in future, they're stuck on reviewing the events of the past. This is the problem with the Guardian-until its contributors can incorporate gut human instinct into their solutions, it will forever be dismissed as a pretentious liberal paper which wipes the arse of Twitter on a weekly basis.
As for where I stand, whilst I believe that anonymity should be awarded for all suspected criminals during high-profile trials (after all, being acquitted on paper is one thing but recovering one's reputation is quite another). After conviction, well, that's up to people more qualified than I. It certainly shouldn't be influenced by a group of armchair NIMBYs whose actions are informed by hypocritical, emotionally charged articles about "the hunt for Maddy" or "How the wonder drug that we promoted several months ago may now actually KILL YOUR CHILDREN AND PETS". But at the same time, it shouldn't be left in the hands of people who are intrinsically incapable of offering realistic solutions.
Fuck it, I'm going to read Al-Jazeera.
